Quantcast

I’ve Joined the Tate family!

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

doity

Active Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2014
Messages
87
Cruising EBay a couple weeks back late at night a Tate 101 popped up BIN and I figured why not. It is the Tetrasound 101 and it looked very clean and the seller offered returns so I figured I would be safe that way in case it was DOA. It took me a few days to get around to hooking it up and ‘learning the ropes’ and so far I am very pleased. It works great and I am somewhat surprised by the results.

My only experience with Quad decoders/synthesizers has been with the Surround Master (1st Edition) and my Fosgate Audionics Model Four. I found them to be somewhat similar with the edge of course going to the SM. The thing that I didn’t like about both is that they seemed to move things around a bit too much for my tastes. It has been awhile since I used the Surround Master but I seem to recall that while it was certainly impressive, the effect was a bit tiring after awhile. Maybe if they had a separation level knob or something that the user could adjust I might had liked it better. A bit too ‘plug and play’ for my taste as someone who loves to twirl knobs. The thing I don’t like too much about the Model Four is that it tends to pinch the vocals tightly in the front left and the Surround effect tends to give the music a very ‘processed’ quality to it. But.....for what they go for they are a bargain.

I really didn’t know what to expect from the Tate and of course I was very curious and once I had it setup properly I gave it a go. I was quite amazed at how different it worked than the SM and the Audionics unit. The audio is very, very open and full sounding. The music sounds very natural with no pumping, swirling, or other weird druggy kind of effects. The separation is there but it is more of a encompassing kind of effect and natural. I think I read somewhere that the chipset for the Tate II had better separation but not sure. Oh, all of my listening has been in Surround mode and not SQ. I don’t think I even have any SQ albums but I am not big on vinyl. Too much upkeep to keep everything dust free.

Anyways.....the Fosgate Tate 101 seems to be the “Missing Link” in the Tate family. After the Composer and before the more abundant 101A. If anyone has any info on numbers produced I would be curious. As you can see in the pictures the 101 has a removable cover over the chipset. Very cool! Also, the 101 doesn’t have a Cinema mode but two modes marked ST1 & ST2. If anyone knows the difference please tell 🙂



7BB48E2D-07F9-45BF-B6A6-9A18FD213CB1.jpeg


5D725871-0E3C-439D-A171-4E9674239686.jpeg



36FE6A96-90AF-48D0-B2A4-DF44DB40B4D1.jpeg
 

JonUrban

Forum Curmudgeon
Staff member
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Messages
16,340
Location
Connecticut
I have one of those...........somewhere. Purchased from Quad Incorporated, Larry Clifton, back when it was introduced. I think it sold for around $650.

This is the first Tate. I seem to recall that ST1 and ST2 are just different flavors of stereo enhancement.
 

Q-Eight

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Messages
3,194
Location
Castlegar, BC, Canada
I was about to say.... that looks similar, but not exactly like my Tate. Mine is also a silver-faced version. Still, congratulations!

I will admit, the Tate made me like SQ a little more. But I still only have about 6 SQ LP's, compared to over 60 CD-4 and 30 QS.
 

doity

Active Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2014
Messages
87
Great score 👍. My Tate has not seen any real service yet as I wanted to have it recapped first. Out of sight out of mind I guess.
 

furui_suterioo

Well-known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
198
Location
kgLoks Agenjegleks, gCagliforgnjiga
It actually showed up today and I'm testing it right now with just headphones(cant wake my neighbor), at first there was no output from the rear right channel so I opened it and lubricated the level pots got all four channels going but it still doesn't sound perfect, there is slight static. I'm hoping the chips are not bad, it still decodes accurately but I can tell something is not quite right, probably needs recapping, that will have to wait for now. Here is the inside:
20200804_194929.jpg

20200804_195030.jpg
 

jaybird100

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Messages
1,231
Location
Pembroke Pines, FL
For what all these restorations are likely to cost you, you could get a Surround Master, which replaces both the Tate and the QSD-2, with tri-band decoding and a much smaller footprint. Well worth it.
 

ar surround

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
2,065
Location
New Joisey
For what all these restorations are likely to cost you, you could get a Surround Master, which replaces both the Tate and the QSD-2, with tri-band decoding and a much smaller footprint. Well worth it.
Although I have minimal experience with upmixes derived from the Tate 101, I have found the results to vary from spectacular to downright weird. The SMv2 does not yield such spectacular upmixes, however it never produces such bizarre results.

Try playing And Your Bird Can Sing from Revolver if you want to hear bizarre results from the Tate.
 

jaybird100

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Messages
1,231
Location
Pembroke Pines, FL
On the contrary, I find the SM2 delivers some incredible upmixes. It really depends on the recording being played, and the mix in it. As for that Beatles track, the Tate was never especially good on upmixing. I have the Audionics Tate unit, too, and although it sounded good with SQ-encoded material, it never quite cut it enhancing stereo recordings. The SQ, on the SM2, is at least as good as, if not a tad better than, the Tate. And, the Tate doesn't do QS. That mode is far better for enhancing stereo, and the results with QS records is fantastic.
 

doity

Active Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2014
Messages
87
It actually showed up today and I'm testing it right now with just headphones(cant wake my neighbor), at first there was no output from the rear right channel so I opened it and lubricated the level pots got all four channels going but it still doesn't sound perfect, there is slight static. I'm hoping the chips are not bad, it still decodes accurately but I can tell something is not quite right, probably needs recapping, that will have to wait for now. Here is the inside:

As I recall it took a fair bit of knob twirling on mine to get it sounding and working right. I guess that 40 years of dust will do that. As far as the Surround Master, I had the first version (non SQ?) and while impressive it didn’t sound as natural as the Tate does. Also it was a bit too ‘plug and play’ for my tastes. I know that the new one is different but I much prefer the look of the Tate as it is more component sized and matches my other vintage stuff well. I can’t imagine it will be too much to change out maybe 6 capacitors and clean the knobs/switches. As I recall it is the capacitors on the power supply side that you have to really worry about. Also will probably have them switch out the transformer as mine buzzed a bit which was very odd.
 

jaybird100

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Messages
1,231
Location
Pembroke Pines, FL
Well, for me, the SM2 made sense, but I get what you're saying, too. I kinda like the "plug and play" aspect of the SM2, and like the fact that it has individual level controls for each channel, should I need to adjust them. As for sounding natural, that's all subjective, since different people have different ideas about what "natural" sounds like. I can say that I'm more than satisfied with the SM2, in sound quality and separation, and also that one unit does the job for both matrices.
 

doity

Active Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2014
Messages
87
All this talk makes me wonder what Jim Fosgate would think about the Surround Master. He obviously knows about it by now. Does anyone know if he has mentioned it or not?
 

furui_suterioo

Well-known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
198
Location
kgLoks Agenjegleks, gCagliforgnjiga
Did anyone ever locate a schematic diagram for Tate? I read that someone on here had one but they they never uploaded it, I've only found the user manual. I would have the SM if only it had cd-4 but that is a whole nother conversion. My pile of old equipment needing recapping is steadily growing, I had actually signed up for an electricity class at my community college but they closed and it was canceled :(
 

sjcorne

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
3,081
Location
Southern NY
As for that Beatles track, the Tate was never especially good on upmixing. I have the Audionics Tate unit, too, and although it sounded good with SQ-encoded material, it never quite cut it enhancing stereo recordings.
I seem to be the only one singing its praises, but I love the Tate's 'surround' upmix mode. I prefer it to both my SMv1 and QSD-2. It creates a horseshoe-like effect where everything that's hard-panned left or right in stereo is placed discretely in the rear speakers. It really isolates stuff in a way I've never heard any other hardware matrix decoder do. I've had really impressive results with Fleetwood Mac's Tango In The Night, CSNY's Deja Vu, Black Sabbath's debut LP, Dire Straits' self-titled album, and several others.

Regarding SQ decoding, I don't agree that the Involve unit is as good or better than the Tate. I've done a close A/B between the two and I think the Tate gives more separation, particularly in the center front to center back position. Listen to the rear channels only of an Involve SQ decode and you'll almost always hear the vocals leaking into the rears, whereas the Tate wipes them out almost completely.

Does anyone know if Bob Popham is even still alive and kicking?
I spoke to Jim Fosgate via email about a year ago and he told me to contact Bob if I had any issues with my Tate, so I would assume so.
 

J. PUPSTER

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
5,981
Location
CALIFORNIA (CENTRAL)
Did anyone ever locate a schematic diagram for Tate? I read that someone on here had one but they they never uploaded it, I've only found the user manual. I would have the SM if only it had cd-4 but that is a whole nother conversion. My pile of old equipment needing recapping is steadily growing, I had actually signed up for an electricity class at my community college but they closed and it was canceled :(
I think we're all hoping that Chucky and crew produces some kind of CD-4 demodulator, seems like that may have been discussed here somewhere :unsure:

Too bad about the college course cancellation, I would jump at that if I was younger. We can always learn lots of stuff online about most subjects, but I also believe a structured hands on course in electronics (hope that's what you meant) would be much more efficient in climbing that huge learning curve for that subject.
 

Sonik Wiz

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
1,615
Location
Kansas City
I seem to be the only one singing its praises, but I love the Tate's 'surround' upmix mode. I prefer it to both my SMv1 and QSD-2. It creates a horseshoe-like effect where everything that's hard-panned left or right in stereo is placed discretely in the rear speakers.
Well I agree that the Fosgate Tate did great on stereo to surround. But so did QS. Any Variomatrix unit had the Synthesizer mode that also provided a horseshoe wrap around effect. The Sansui method also enhanced any rear ch ambience/reverb while the Fosgate did not. So I would describe this as the QS Synth mode sounds fuller or more rounder (sic?) while the Fosgate Tate 101A that I used had a thinner more distinct soundfield, both doing the 270 deg wrap around.

Listen to the rear channels only of an Involve SQ decode and you'll almost always hear the vocals leaking into the rears, whereas the Tate wipes them out almost completely.
Whether it's SQ or QS a center front vocalist is essentially a mono mix where left ch equals right ch. If you take a true mono record or mono pink noise , & listen to only the rear chs (QS or SQ decoding mode)adjusting for left/right balance on the input to the SM you can null that center front leakage out completely. Or at least that any leakage to the rears is completely inaudible. One of the drawbacks to the SM is it has no input balance like the Fosgate unit & that balance is very critical. Get that right & any center front leakage to the rear, SQ or otherwise, should be a non-issue.

Edit: The biggest problem on the SM any version is that is does not have a proper stereo synth mode like the Fosgate or Sansui units!
 

furui_suterioo

Well-known Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
198
Location
kgLoks Agenjegleks, gCagliforgnjiga
I was up till 2 AM listening to non-quad Beatles/Floyd/Zepp through Tate SQ mode rear channels with headphones, its definitely good at isolating vocals and really scrambling up some recordings in new crazy ways(not necessarily good but I like crazy mixed up sound). It was on for about 3 or 4 hours but the sound still didn't clean up entirely, I was thinking about lubricating the internal pots but I really dont want to mess with the adjustments as I dont know how they are supposed to be set. I really need to improve my electrical skills, at the college they have all the parts, tools and soldering stations, all I have is my studio which has no room for that and watching videos just isn't as good as hands on practice. It may sound ambitious, but my goal is to learn to fix old stereos eventually, if was an expert I would build an all solid state decoder box with re-creations of Tate, sansui vm, and the cd4 board from qrx9001 using only discrete components(no ICs). Also the other legacy quad formats(including basic dynaco diamond, ev-4, ud4 etc) and a seperation level pot going all the way from 4ch mono to double stereo to non-logic to full logic, also speaker postion rotation control pot.
 
Top